< 25 December	27 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DataPop, Inc.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable and promotional. The references are either incidental mentions or public relations.

(Yet another promotional article accepted from AfC. Going through them chronologically up to the present, the proportion of bad articles accepted to good articles rejected is increasing. It's now about 2:1. We could do better by doing it at random. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article written by the corporation itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic not notable. There are plenty of company profile sites out on the web, no need to duplicate that on Wikipedia. WP:COMPANY is pretty close to WP:GNG in saying that several independent reliable sources need to be talking about the topic at length for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion. I could not find any evidence of such notability. This article appears to be mostly advertising for the company. Such content is not appropriate for WP. besides independent coverage the article needs to make some claim that establishes that the topic matters. This is just another ad company, nothing special. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 10:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, DataPop exists. No, they aren't any more notable than any other company. The history could read like any other Silicon Valley startup. Gm545 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arco (company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue. Cpncern was: Being selected to supply a possibly important customer is not an indication of significance or importance.. When I originally patrolled this new article, if it hadn't been for the claim in the single reference, I would have tagged it for CSD A7. No other significant sources found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: On the one hand this appears to be a firm with 1500 employees in business for almost 100 years, and some local importance [1]. On the other hand, aside from that Guardian passing mention, plus a mention that the firm have been reducing their carbon footprint, and some PR-type articles in "Food Trade Review" about branch openings, I am not finding anything about the firm to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Happy to revise that opinion if some reliable sources are identified though. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks as if it might be a reliable source from 1955 if anyone can get hold of the original (Rubber Journal, volume 129). As the company does seem to have been in existence for nearly a century, I would be surprised if a really thorough search could not come up with more sources - though, given the company's original name, some of the coverage from the 1970s and 1980s might be distinctly negative. PWilkinson (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So what? What have they done? What makes them more notable than the supplier of funny-shaped hats for the 2008 Olympics? Lack of sources. Gm545 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked over the sources cited by others above, as well as the one in the article currently, plus I did some searching of my own and came up empty. All total I'm just not seeing an significant coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has achieved nothing of note as a professional wrestler. The article generally fails WP:GNG as there is no evidence that the subject has been the recipient of substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.
Given the sockpuppet investigation into the article's major contributors and that, as LM2000 pointed out, googling "Brimstone wrestler wikipedia" brings up websites making fun of us for allowing such blatant self-promotion, it is surely time to exorcise this wikidemon. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not a fan of articles facing multiple AfDs but this is certainly an exceptional case. This article was created by a user who was, at one point, blocked for promoting Brimstone.[2] Not long after that, at least two recently confirmed sockpuppets were created. For years they lovingly maintained the article. At one point the article was filled up with so much puffery, according to the article's talk page, that it had three times as many citations as Sting (wrestler) and rivaled Triple H's article in terms of overall size. These shenanigans went on for at least six years, until User:RealDealBillMcNeal went through every citation carefully and put the article in shape to wikipedia's standards... at least the best that one user could. It's not hard to see why this article survived two previous AfDs, with all that puff and that never ending list of (mostly unreliable) sources which at first glance might have looked impressive, not to even mention the socks that were used for leverage. In the very least this needs to be deleted so we can get a fresh start with brand new history. As Suriel brilliantly words it, this has become a "wikidemon" that wrestlingmark3:16 and the like flock to for a laugh.

But I would go further and delete it for good. When you remove all of the puff, this subject fails WP:ENT. The patron saints of the article, who are now banned for sockpuppetry, would have included more reliable coverage in the article if it had existed.LM2000 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Given the the history of abuse involving this article, its frequent editors, and even abuse in past AfDs, be wary of posts made by IPs, new users, and the like.LM2000 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are notable independent wrestlers (who wrestle on the independent circuit and there are non-notable independent wrestlers. As a user with interest and knowledge of professional wrestling, it is puzzling how I have never heard of this wrestler before. Look on the web and you'll see other people with an interest in professional wrestling who have never heard of this guy.

1) calls an older version of the page as "The Funniest Entry on Wikipedia" What happens when someone with a huge ego, but no notability proceeds to write their own Wikipedia article? Let’s just throw into the blender that this person is also a pro-wrestler and a huge mark for themselves... considering this is someone who competed in my backyard when I was younger, I’ve never even heard of him before. In fairness most people have probably never heard of him though, considering he has never wrestled for any of the major wrestling feds or even the major indy feds (ROH, Chikara, PWG… to name a few)... If your wondering why there’s so many gems, it’s because this reads more like someone writing their life story on Livejournal, not an encyclopedia entry.
2) At some online forums you have users saying There's an awful lot of information on there for such a small name and It makes him seem as big a wrestling star with cross-over appeal like Hogan or Rock or Cena. To a non-wrestling fan reading it, it makes him seem as big a wrestling star as Tom Hanks is to movies or Elvis was to music or Ted Williams was to baseball... It does read as if it's a personal memoir written written like the Rock talks.
3) and other forums: like indy guys nobody heard or cares about but somehow, has the most detail about them, this one is Brimstone where it goes on huge amount to talk about Brimstone's entire career... something tells me that Brimstone wrote this one himself

Even now that the article has been vastly trimmed down, three of the sources are primary sources, reference 3 (about CMPW), reference 9 from CAJOHNS, reference 14 from Brimstone's website, and ~~three~~ no, four (missed the bumblefoot one) of the sources in the article are interviews with Brimstone, something I consider to be nearer to a primary source because where's the fact checking? Brimstone could have made the things up - (this is not currently in the article) but in reference 1 (the warned interview) he claims to have founded the New York Wrestling Connection which had its first wrestling event in 1998, which from three online sources never held an event until 2003 here, also here and here!

Now usually pro wrestler articles will have lots of Wiki-links, because by their nature the articles will link to other notable pro wrestlers or other notable wrestling companies or notable wrestling championships. A random example I thought of - Drake Younger, another wrestler on the independent circuit, look at his Wiki-links to other notable pro wrestlers or other notable wrestling companies or notable wrestling championships. But look at this article. Other than Wiki-links to places like Queens, New York, what else is there? The championship he won have no article for itself, the company he founded (Critical Mass Pro Wrestling) has no article for itself, the comic he wrote Brimstone and the Borderhounds was very recently deleted for not being notable, the other wrestlers he wrestled with in the article have no Wikipedia articles (Chris Hostile, Mayhem), and the wrestlers which did have Wiki-links (all three of them) are supposedly his trainers, which Brimstone claimed in the Warner interview, which I showed above, has dubious claims itself, also, WP:NOTINHERIT for his trainers. Also, quite a few claims in this already short article fails to cite a source.

tl;dr - if everything Brimstone associates with, no matter in pro wrestling (fellow wrestlers, companies, championships), comics, sauces and his wife is not notable, how notable do you think he himself is? Starship.paint (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - far weaker than I thought before analyzing, but still delete. Brimstone the wrestler is utterly non-notable. The previous AfD, before someone brings up the fact that it was kept unanimously, had four sockpuppet keep votes (User:Fall Of Darkness and User:RingWars2007 were just busted for sockpuppetry, two other users turned out to be socks of banned user Justa Punk.) Brimstone had never wrestled in a notable promotion, held a notable title, or done anything otherwise notable. The long string of sources that persuaded some of the prior keep votes were often shoehorned or partially falsified (for example, the sources used to cite that "Brimstone has been linked to Dawn Marie's Wrestler Rescue" actually only said he would be at an autograph signing with a couple dozen other wrestlers)
However, there may be a case of notability for William Kucmierowski as a comic book writer, due to the businessinfoguide interview being a fairly strong source. Even so I'm going weak delete because of that policy that says people only notable for one thing usually aren't notable (my acronym-fu is failing me I can't think of the policy name). 96.244.132.35 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC) full disclosure since policy-knowledgable IPs are suspect - I'm a former longterm-inactive wikipedia user who's been messing about a bit lately but doesn't remember his old password or feel like registering a new name[reply]
Delete per nom and previous votes.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as detailed above. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can I check that any redirects to the article will be deleted as well? Starship.paint (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If (when) it gets deleted, use Special:WhatLinksHere/Brimstone (wrestler) to list all the redirects and then clean them up at will. 96.244.132.35 (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay. Thanks for the info, 96. Starship.paint (talk)

Delete this article is a joke. At one point (either this guy, or someone who's doing publicity for him) there was a section for the guy's boots. This entire thing, even with help, reads like an advert for.... effectively a guy who's done nothing notable in wrestling, and has worked in... at most, an ameteur grade film. Crisis.E X E 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, If it's deleted, I reccomend salting it so he doesn't create it again Crisis.E X E 21:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also recommend, to any administrators watching this, to extend User:RingWars2007's ban to indefinite. They are currently serving only a 1 month ban for being guilty of sockpuppetry. These accounts were clearly here just to promote Brimstone, not to better the encyclopedia, and they have caused quite the mess for WikiProject Professional wrestling to clean up.LM2000 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It will be much easier to get this article deleted again if he tries to recreate it now that it has actually failed a AfD. Additionally, RingWars2007 quit editing Wikipedia a couple days after the sockpuppet investigation was started, a month before he was actually blocked. My guess is that he can read the writing on the wall and has decided to give up. 96.244.132.35 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - They had been using Fall Of Darkness to do most of the editing recently. Now that that is indef blocked (and an unblock request was recently shot down) I'll watch for activity in RingWars2007 once its block is up. If no salting or blocking occurs now, you're right that it will be easier to request action after these things happen again. For the sake of everyone's time and energy I hope that you're right in that they saw the writing on the wall and are ready to move on.LM2000 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This bit if self-promotion has been going on for far too long. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable as wrestler or comic writer --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Props to RealDealBillMcNeal for the herculean effort in trying to clean this up, but its inherent problems just seem beyond repair until Brimstone actually does something notable. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've proposed a deletion of the Wikiquote page as well here, please head over there to vote. Starship.paint (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we should propose for deletion Brimstone's photos. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

alright, KILL STEEN KILL. Next station, Commons *beep* Starship.paint (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are no real policy-based grounds for deleting this article, which is properly sourced. That sockpuppets were involved in its creation says nothing whatsoever about the notability of the subject, and is merely being touted as a prejudicial device. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sharing which of the sources you consider to be acceptable per WP:RS? and how precisely they demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the nine participants in this discussion who posted before you, only two directly mentioned the sockpuppets in their posts. Yours truly was one of them, 96.244.132.35 was the other, both mentions of the sockpuppets were to explain how this article survived two previous AfDs, which is rather essential in a case like this... Nobody is arguing that this article should be deleted because of sockpuppetry. This is a lengthy discussion so I can't blame you if you didn't read all of it, but the notability issue has been addressed by almost everyone.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appear to be secondary sources in the article, such as the NBC News citation, that go to notability. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as impressive as "NBC News" sounds. That's a single WP:NEWSBLOG reference - it doesn't constitutes significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way the sources are placed in the article are just as disingenuous as any other content placed in the article and victim to the same puffery issues. If an argument is made that the sources are adequate, although others in this thread make a strong case to the contrary, the article will need to be deleted to start from scratch (WP:TNT). Even after the earlier enemas, we're still digging up new issues.LM2000 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention in my original vote for deletion above about the questionable sources (primary / interview) and that in interviews, Brimstone has made dubious claims that affect reliability and believability. Well, looks like I have to go through this again, this time one by one. Starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1: Warned interviews Brimstone. Essentially, this is a primary source as we are all hearing the information from Brimstone's mouth. There's no fact-checking at all. In fact, Brimstone does make some dubious claims - "The show was ... manned by Lord Clarence MacDougal, Hostile, Mayhem, and myself. We needed a name, and Hostile came up with N.Y.W.C., or New York Wrestling Connection ... The NYWC was born… The first event held in August of 1998". Essentially in this interview conducted in 2007, Brimstone claims credit for founding New York Wrestling Connection and played a part in its first event in 1998. Meanwhile, I have three online sources that claim that NYWC never held an event until 2003 1, 2 and 3. Also, here is NYWC's website. I searched it for "Brimstone" and "1998", nothing came up. Likewise, I invite you to search on NYWC's forums, there's zero mention of Brimstone, a few of 1998 but nothing related to NYWC having an event in that year or Brimstone. Makes you wonder, that if he makes a dubious claim in this interview, what other claims in that interview are dubious? What other claims in other interviews are dubious. It means I can hardly consider any interview of Brimstone reliable. Interviews with Brimstone are cited six times in that article. Imagine if we removed all of those.
References 2 and 4, are newspaper references. Unfortunately, we are unable to read the newspaper articles (could someone link to them?) so how are these verifiable? And these are newspapers so significant to the degree that they do not have pages on Wikipedia.
Reference 3 is obviously a primary source, about CMPW, by CMPW.
Reference 5 and 6 are about Wrestler's Rescue, a one-day event. "A day meet-n-greet event and an evening dinner event with auctions, entertainment and more." I'm not sure how this counts as two sources of significant coverage for Brimstone. He doesn't take up more than fifteen words across both sources. One source focused on Dawn Marie, the other on Bumblefoot. Brimstone is mentioned as 'slated to appear' at the event along with forty other people, because for both the references were conducted before the event, we don't even know if he even turned up for the event.
Reference 7, 9 and 11 are all interviews with Brimstone. Please refer to reference 1 about verifiability and dubious claims.
Reference 8 is a primary source (CaJohns), Brimstone releases some sauces with CaJohns, and CaJohns reports that.
Reference 10 is a secondary source for Brimstone getting married. Well good for him, but is he notable for that?
Reference 12 is from Online World of Wrestling, which the WP:PW style guide does not consider a reliable source, but under 'Other websites (not yet proven)' to be Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking. If you look at Brimstone's page, it states him winning a bunch of titles, on unknown dates and defeating ????? wrestlers. Seems fishy to me. Oh look, it says he won the NYWC Tag Titles thrice. That's weird, then shouldn't be recognized as a champion?
Reference 13 is a primary source from Brimstone's own website.
Reference 14 shows Brimstone winning a championship. Huzzah. A championship so minor, out of the eleven other wrestlers who won it, only two have Wikipedia pages.

One additional thing that hasn't been brought up yet - what's missing from the article? A PWI 500 mention, from a magazine WP:PW considers established. This site keeps track of how wrestlers are ranked in top 500 in the world based on their accomplishments in that year. Never in his career, not one year, has Brimstone appeared in a PWI 500 list. Never. This is a guy who's hopped across jobs while never being successful at anything much. Wrestling, comics, sauces. To quote BoosterBronze from Brimstone's talk page... "you can stack cow-patties a mile high and they still never become a pot of gold." Starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Even JB Jammer, Battle Monkey and Phil Latio made the bottom 100. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No solid secondary sources with substantial coverage are presented here, even big-name news sources. Wait until he appears in books or academic journals. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see the current sourcing as anywhere near strong enough I don't think we need academic journal coverage to have articles for wrestlers.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which Starship mentioned, would be a reasonable substitute for wrestling related articles. Nothing like that ever covered Brimestone though so it's irrelevant either way.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously??? Nothing that satisfies rule WP:42. What's the fuss? Let's piledrive this troll! Gm545 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list of scientists who both oppose the scientific and medical consensus – that HIV is the cause of AIDS – and whose opinions are intrinsically noteworthy enough for Wikipedia coverage (whether due to their stature as scientists in general, or because of particular prominence on this one issue) is quite short, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. We already do a better job of covering these individuals by mentioning them – or their research – with appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the proper (NPOV) context of our parent article on HIV/AIDS denialism. Where sufficiently notable (currently only Duesberg clears this threshold) we would link from the parent article to individual biographical articles per standard Wikipedia practice.

Maintaining the separate list has potential BLP, SYN, and WEIGHT issues, caused by potentially over-emphasizing one aspect of a scientist's career and by discussing HIV denialism outside of the context and contrast provided within the parent article.

See also the related List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy, the associated discussion at WT:MED and corresponding AfD, for which many of the same arguments apply. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the strongest possible support for deletion. This is an entirely subjective list with no inclusion criteria discussed. The nominator says it better than I ever can, but I would emphasise most strongly that it almost certainly falls foul of BLP policies and should be removed as a matter of some urgency, in the interim it may prove sensible and prudent to remove the names from the page. Nick (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete a POV fork which gives some impression that AIDS denialism is in some small part respectable. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork. Hardly enough for a list anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The shortness of the list is not a good reason for deletion. It would be easy to find other names that could be added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom's rationale is incredibly well-founded and clearly stated. -- Scray (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not incredible, very credible indeed! Xxanthippe (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as a fork. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without expressing an opinion on whether the article should be deleted, I will say that some of the reasons given for deletion seem wrong to me. I don't believe that there is a significant BLP issue here. The potential BLP problems of this list are not worse than the potential BLP problems of HIV/AIDS denialism, an article that apparently no one wants to delete. I also don't believe it's true that the article makes the views of those who dispute HIV as the cause of AIDS seem more credible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of list needs to go extinct on Wikipedia. Project Steve shows why such lists are problematic. Now who is brave enough to go for the big one? jps (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a scientist objected to the findings of a particular research paper related to the cause of AIDS, would they be added to this list? Or would that only happen if the scientist were known to "oppose" something more general? What? What criteria could be used? Lists like this are highly misleading because in a world of 7 billion, there will always be people who oppose anything. However, science is not a vote, and an article should not be an indiscriminate collection of information—merely something which appeals to an editor. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination rationale. I am One of Many (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Homeland Mall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not be sufficiently notable to meet WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless other sources and more significant coverage are provided all of the current coverage is passing mentions. the three items from secondary sources (an "award" from a non notable organization, the hosting of an art competition, and being part of a beta test for a Nokia ap) are not claims to notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "hall of fame" is the only thing that makes this close to noteworthy but the award isn't substantial enough. Gm545 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Chris857 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human skull[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable JujitsuJohn (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Pointless nomination by an editor whose only previous contribution was a similarly baseless nomination. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Entirely qualifies under criterion 2b. I would perform a non-admin close if I was confident in my ability to carry out that process. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to PC Connection. Though I see little truly worth merging here, Courcelles 18:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ValCom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable as per WP:COMPANY. Created by company employee, sources are mainly corporate press releases. No WP:CORPDEPTH by secondary sources to suggest it was ever notable. Drm310 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was acquired by PC Connection in 2011. Is there any reason it shouldn't be merged there? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep regardless of whether the current article is promotional, if there are sources that cumulatively meet WP:GNG, then we should have an article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Candleabracadabra. We usually merge old companies/subsidiaries that have been merged in real life. Especially, as Tony the Tiger implies, the company is barely notable. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge to PC Connection would be functional in this case, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content here is effecively a list of certifications and partnership appropriate to the IT services areas covered by the firm's operation. I am not seeing clear evidence of notability of the firm in its own right, and am unclear whether any of that content that would really merit extending the brief mention already existing in PC Connection#Acquisitions? AllyD (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources to support notability in the first five pages of a Google search. Merge makes no sense since the company isn't notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with PC Connection, although a lot would need to be culled. Gm545 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King & The Cauze (Group)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Group fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail wp:BAND. A good example of why we have wp:CRYSTAL Neonchameleon (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough albums released to make WP:BAND, nor do they meet any of the other criteria. Gm545 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos (Sir Los) Jordan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are claims of notability but not verified by reliable sources. I searched on my own but could not verify. Going by username of creator and promotional level, the claims seem dubious. Already prodded under slightly different name (Carlos Jordan (Sir Los)) CutOffTies -- (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-noteworthy musician. Block the article creator for repeated re-creations of his self-written biography under different titles, both in and out of mainspace. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carlos Jordan (Sir Los) – user's sole contributions to date have been self-promotion. Super Mario Man 08:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable person, purely promotional article. Alex^{discussion ★} 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't address the policy-based deletion rationales and boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which as has been noted is a weak argument in deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the future in forecasts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A festival of WP:SYNTH, WP:ESSAY, and WP:CRYSTAL, nothing has improved since the last visit to AFD. And five years later, a number of the predictions have been overtaken by time, leaving 2004 as the baseline for the future. Surely there is a market out there for a book (or probably another book) about futurological predictions, but the mere fact that we can cite such predictions is not a good enough reason for us to write an article about them, still less being able to make something coherent of it. It's not a timeline, and it's not at all clear why some predictions should be taken seriously and others omitted; inclusion seems indiscriminate; it cries out for a thesis making sense of all this data, and that's something we don't do. This is Popular Science's territory, not ours. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. This is a speculative article that makes wild guesses at the future. WP:CRYSTAL does give some leeway in these cases to scientific predictions, but this seems sourced to government and corporate spokespeople, futurologists, and science fiction writers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the article - it certainly can be improved but it's a helpful list. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT? Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took a wiki walk to find this page, and I don't want it going anywhere. While it could be reformatted into a singular timeline, the information present is a good start, and I think that more could be added by citing various corporate and governmental websites regarding their "plans" for the future. 71.215.184.162 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes is not a reliable source, not that I see what the point of this is anyway. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful page that aggregates others' predictions of the future, placing them in context with one another. The page makes no claims to the veracity of any particular claim or source, but instead reports who said what about the future. What various sources say about the future, regardless of whether the predictions are "true" is still quite useful data. cross_impact (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:ILIKEIT too. Gm545 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JK! Easily fails WP:CRYSTAL#3. 'an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not [appropriate]' Gm545 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additionally, let me just say I find it unimaginable that the first passed keep. By definition, events in the future are unverifiable. Just because there's a web link doesn't mean that they're going to happen, otherwise we're having Jurassic Park on our hands in a few years according to Mr. Clarke. People, please read WP:CRYSTAL#1, "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Plus, please note sockpuppets in the prior discussion. Gm545 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (India)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a condensed reprint of bureaucratic regulations, retaining all the details of the bureaucratic language. It's not encyclopedic, and there are no third party references. An article on this topic might be appropriate, but probably not separate articles country by country in this fashion DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" is a certified trade regulated by a government agency in India, hence the India-specific article. Similar to Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada) and disambiguated at Aircraft maintenance engineer. Capitalization of this article should agree, I think. Ivanvector (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There is no doubt that aircraft maintenance engineer is a notable occupation. If it is felt that the similarities between countries are greater than the differences then there could be a new article into which this and Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada) could then be merged if desired. But the editor of such a general article should consider that it is essentially the same trade as Aircraft maintenance technician, which article is written from a US standpoint with Europe added as an afterthought, which is really not the right approach. A root and branch editing job could be undertaken by somebody who knows the subject, but national differences would need to be noted and there is no ground for deletion of this article there. As for the style, that is again not relevant to deletion, and I would add as an aside that there are many Indian users of the English Wikipedia and we all (including those of us who are not of Indian origin) hope that many more Indian specific articles will appear. Indian English has differences of style and idiom from US or British English, and that is especially true in official usage. That is not to say that contributors may not need, or appreciate, help in casting articles in an appropriate style as we all do, but WP:ENGVAR applies. --AJHingston (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. That's great, but this fails WP:42. Gm545 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are primary. No indication that the subject is notable enough to have had secondary articles written about it. Gm545 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only based on primary sources, and would need a complete rewrite to read as an encyclopedia article. No objection to a competent recreation. Sandstein 12:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for non notable organization. The references are to the general subject, not to the organization DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Márquez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable artist. damiens.rf 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article from The Age cited is a good source and there are several GBooks results, e.g. [3], [4], [5]. I also found coverage in a GNews archive search a while back but Google seem to have dropped the archive(?). --Michig (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is comprised of 1 or 2 sentences, which violates A3. Article also lacks enough content to be able to keep out of A1. Article has existed for over 8 years, but no significant improvements or future signs of improvement whatsoever. TheTriple M 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It meets neither of those criteria for speedy deletion. --Michig (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's sources, plus this article from the Organization of American States magazine Americas [6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sufficient English-language sources. This page is better off in the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylar Jean (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what language sources are in. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm looking at WP: ARTIST and can't see anything in the article that conforms to that. Were this article new, I'd go for a weak keep to allow time for it to build up, but it's been here since 2005 so if the subject was notable I'm sure we'd have a lot more to go on by now. --gilgongo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG, which is satisfied here. Article state and notability are not related. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, subject has now been shown to meet the 'significant critical attention' criterion of WP:ARTIST, if nothing else. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 21:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article indicate that this artist has been covered in adequate detail by reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. I agree with Michig's remarks above. Sandstein 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep with the strong sources mentioned above, now in the article, and the Lucie-Smith book cited by Arxiloxos. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about individual research center in a law school. Most of the content is about the background for the various causes pursued or investigated there, not the work of the center. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Washington University School of Law as per normal in the case of non=notable academic units. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The activities, awards, and conferences of this institution seem to be quite significant and have received some coverage that cumulatively establishes notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Moore Farmstead[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm submitting this article for two reasons. (1) The preamble implies that the text is copied from a survey published by the Minnesota Historical Society.[7] Copyright must be assumed without evidence to the contrary. (2) Nothing in the text clues us into any significance the property might have, and virtually all of it is at a level of detail that is way beyond encyclopedic. I would try to make a decent stub out of it but I don't think there's sufficient noteworthy info in it for that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also now just noticed a conflict of interest, in that the creator, User:Rvanderwoude, has identified himself as the owner of the property. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The farmstead is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (property #86003604 [8]). I will check the article out for copyright issues. The subject is notable even if the article has to be reduced to a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on national register. Dlohcierekim 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Country Club (Fort Myers)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written by a SPA named after the course, sounding like a sales brochure, it really asserts not claim of notability. The private course isn't on any notable "best of" lists", doesn't host any notable tournaments and really has nothing more than the fact that it's there. Searching for sources is difficult because the real estate sites dominate the returns. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable golf course....William 12:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete almost a speedy. Blatant spam. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Star Revolt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything to suggest notability. All the coverage I can find is primary or routine. James^x12345 17:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Less than 50 Google search results, which indicates a lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Herrod[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks reliable secondary sources. Two major contributors to the article are connected to the subject. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Massive COI. WP:NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and have someone who isn't closely connected to the subject write it. There are a few reliable sources: TechCrunch, The Register, Network World, Information Week, InfoWorld. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW BLOW if that's a thing. It needs blowing up and starting over. But that's not a delete. And the rest can go on WP:ANI I think this is unanimous> Neonchameleon (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a CV, rather than an encyclopædia article. But the commenters above should restrain themselves a little; it's a bit harsh calling for a BLP possibly written in good faith to be blown up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Duffy (entrepreneur)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article at Craig Duffy was A7'd 3 times in 2008 and salted. (If this article survives it needs to be moved to that title, no need for disambiguation). No evidence that this man is notable: he is "was the Founding Director & CEO of one of Australia's fastest growing and largest IT companies" but it's not named. Also Founder and CEO of several redlinked companies. The refs are mostly to his role as a snooker player, and to LinkedIn. PamD 10:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Even though the article isn't well written it does meet some WP:gng guidelines.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how does it meet WP:GNG? He has no significant coverage except for minor snooker achievements. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a business person or sportsperson he fails notability. If he was a national snooker champion maybe. Use of linkedin as a source is alarm bell for lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ENTREPRENEUR. Sources provided are trivial and do not indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roby (hacker)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability at required by WP:GNG. Three of the sources offered contain only one sentence mentions of the subject. The fourth sources doesn't mention him at all. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, the accompanying photo of the subject taken by the subject but uploaded by the author of the article suggests a connection between them, that the author of the article may be the subject himself, a practice we discourage per WP:AUTO and WP:NOTHERE. Msnicki (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Abstain. Like the case of someone trying to promote themselves using Wikipedia. Lack of mainstream, reliable sources suggests a failure of Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) at this point. If the creator requests, this can as usual be userfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm citing more sources right now, I just wanted to get the page started while I work on it further. To answer your question as to whether or not I am this person, I am not. I asked Richard if there were a photo I could use for the page since online profiles appear to be photos which are not of him. He linked me to a photo on his Facebook page and said it would be alright to use it.Please, allow me more time to compile all of the information together, I'll have everything up to code in a minute. Also, if you need me to verify identity, as in verify I am not the subject that would be fine, just let me know how I might go about doing that and I'll be more than happy to. I'm rather disappointed though that you would automatically make this assumption and jump to conclusions without even asking for verification. --InfoSecGuy (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now clarified my point with the page, and I have added a few new sources as well from Wired & Washington Post. I believe the trouble with, searching Google, by the way is that you are not searching correctly, I can find the subject perfectly fine by name or handle, it's getting through much of the "trash talk" that is cluttering results which is the issue. If you look up "Richard Roby"+Krashed on google for example, you would find much more information including news articles from wired & Academic sources across various websites within the edu namespace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoSecGuy (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article is indeed focused on him, and that is a reliable source. I am changing my vote to abstain. Ping me if there are any new developments or significant arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any significantt coverage. As stated above, the refs given either are mostly trivial mentions or non mentions of him. Seems to have been a minor player in a single court case. noq (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:ONEEVENT seems to speak to your point: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." If there was to be an article at all, the better choice would likely be FBI Operation CyberSlam, but from Googling, I'm not convinced there are sufficient sources to establish notability for that, either. Msnicki (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - from the sources and overall article information and my own searches I am torned but I believe this article subject could very well be notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he did might be notable, but a separate bio article is not needed. An article on the attacks is probably justifiable, if the content could be merged. James^x12345 18:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor criminal with a small part in WP:ONEEVENT. Plus, I'm pretty sure WP puts less editorial rigor on their blogs section. The others are primary sources so there's a lack of WP:RS. Gm545 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiteKiosk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not a massive computer person, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but this article uses mostly source from the subject, and a Google doesn't go any further establishing notability. Mat ty.007 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable coincidence that the article I made up and updated frequently is accused to use "mostly source from the subject" and I'm officially been accused of having a close relationship with the article's subject... after I started a discussion on Kiosk software and talked to it's major contributor. This is a software product which is used by many users. Could you please explain what kind of "further establishing notability"you're missing? BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references don't establish notability, Google doesn't establish notability, what makes this a stand out example of software? Mat ty.007 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the stand out example of kiosk software. To understand the article you'll necessary need to know kiosk mode/kiosk software. There are not many solutions to prevent vandalism and to secure your public PC (POS, POI, ...) properly. On the other hand there's increased demand for those solutions. With "more than 250,000 copies of SiteKiosk" installed it is one of the most used kiosk software solutions worldwide. I'll try to find more references which aren't too closely connected to the maker of that product. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any material by running a Google search to support notability. No significant coverage by independent sources. May just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did some research and added independent sources to support notability and neutrality. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've used SiteKiosk a number of times to secure kiosks. Some references: http://webconverger.org/blog/entry/SiteKiosk_versus_Webconverger/ http://serverfault.com/questions/186678/siteremote-sitekiosk-alternatives http://lifehacker.com/161071/lock-down-public-terminals-with-sitekiosk http://www.arvutid.ee/en/infokiosks/freestanding-kiosks/infokiosk-ml-730.html . In this case I could see that notability could be a relative thing, and this isn't a highly notable piece of software. But it is (has been?) well known, and certainly isn't a fiction. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One's a blog, one seems to be a forum, another one seems like a blog, and one's selling it. So, none of them pass as reliable sources. Thanks, Matty.007 18:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you please give your opinion on the sources I've added three days ago? BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first added merely uses it as a reference, and doesn't talk about it at all as far as I can see. The book isn't loading for me. The Microsoft one is a promotional thing whereby a customer review is published as far as I can tell. The PrinterOn is again a promotional release, between partners if the article is correct, and also a blog. So, none of these sources are reliable. Thanks, Matty.007 19:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The book is loading. I've also added a Master's thesis. If you don't accept an article on the Microsoft website as reliable and notable source there's something wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to talk computer stuff on wikipedia. If you always expect a Time Magazine frontcover of the article's subject there are not really much notable subjects on wikipedia. Thanks, 79.252.219.179 (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, just for transparency, is this BroncoPfefferminz logged out? Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The Microsoft thing is a customer written (I think) promotional thing trying to get people to use Windows 8. Mat ty.007 14:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was me. I'm really trying to make you change your mind on the deletion of this article, but it seems kind of hard to get any source that pleases you. For me it's not transparent why this article lacks of notability and reliability (especially after I've added more recources that have no connection to the maker) compared to most of the other articles that deal with software that isn't that prominent. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've given the issues I have with the sources. Anyway, one vote does not a deleted article make... Thanks, Mat ty.007 15:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BroncoPfefferminz... It seems that you are very passionate about this article but the references that I see do not pass WP:RS. There is no doubt that it exists but notability beyond this has not been established. Has is won an award, is it the first one of many, is it indicated by 3rd party sources as the best they have seen... etc... 250,000 users does not make a piece of software notable in and of it self. - Pmedema (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references that pass rule WP:42. They seem to be all published by the company, trivial mentions or unrelated. Gm545 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think that a state beauty pageant winner is automatically notable — at least I see no guideline that says that one is — and whereas oftentimes pageant winners are notable for other reasons, this one appears to have no such other notability. Delete then redirect to Miss California. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from winning this, I'm not seeing the notability. While the title may be notable, BLP1E might apply to the individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only enough relevance for a single line in Miss California. Gm545 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shams ul Fuqara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. Declined AfC submission posted in main space, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Shams ul Fuqara. An earlier, even spammier version was speedied before, but can still be seen at User:Mrashid364. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: originator has not provided evidence of WP:Notability, and current text is still spammy/promotional and written for adherents, rather than a neutral treatment for a global audience. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside line[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything on the web about this and believe it is a hoax. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant hoax, tagged as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U-Do Project[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Laudable, but ultimately non-notable social enterprise project. The given references consist of a Guardian blog entry written by the organization's founder about the problems in starting up a social enterprise, and a note about a completely unrelated event organized by the organization's founder. The article is pure spam as it stands now, but that could be addressed if reliable independent sources were available to draw from. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I have, however, just turned down a speedy deletion request (promotional/spammy) because I liked WikiDan's rationale about addressing this problem and adding reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mercedes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established for three months. Some controversial claims need cites and they haven't been forthcoming. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. 101.172.213.57 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one source provided is very weak, proving that Mercedes exists but not much else. Notability most definitely not established. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The website used for the sole source is currently suspended - not a good indication of it being reliable! The subject appears to fail general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Good Game. Courcelles 19:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Game: Pocket Edition[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Good Game article (of which this show is a spin-off) already contains as much sourced material as seems to be available, I see no need for a separate article. Propose redirecting to Good Game. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I'm not going to say whether I feel it should be kept or deleted/redirected, but I just want to say that I definitely see where this nomination is coming from. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While currently the entry of Good Game: Pocket Edition on the TV show's main page does have the same references and basic amount of information about the show as the current separate page, I oppose its current deletion. The main page contains a summary, but I feel that more information about the show can be added. I plan to work on the article for the next week, and if after this period of time there is a general consensus that it should be redirected, then so be it. If this is to be the case, I would then request that a separate list of episodes section page be made for pocket edition. Although I have created the majority of this section myself, it acts as a handy reference as to the games, consoles and technologies reviewed more so than the site's similar page.Neuroxic (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Good Game which is quite comprehensive.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that isn't already in Good Game to there and then redirect this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. The show doesn't seem notable enough to require its own article. Gm545 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Holy crap. Unless these guys have some rabid fans, someone from the show has got to have been writing the Good Game main article. Has anyone been looking into it for WP:COI? Paranoia from the author tends to back that up. It should be fairly easy to identify the TV network's IP addresses if we want to go so far. Gm545 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating. Please assume good faith with my decision. If you believe this article was deleted without good reason, please request undeletion at deletion request, not my talk page. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.D Playhouse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a speedy deletion nomination for this article, but I am not sure that the group passes WP:ORG. The article is unsourced, and I couldn't find any really solid sources online. (There was this at broadwayworld.com, but I'm not sure whether the site counts as reliable per WP:RS.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 12:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no widespread independent coverage to support notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above DocumentError (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please note that this has also been published in The Indian Panorama and also in several other places. Also please check with Cherry Lane about the authenticity and the significance of the event. Since this is a South Asian Theater production company formed only this year (2013) and already showcased 2 successful productions in New York City. This is a huge significance for Wiki and the entire wiki community to read about such a young company achieving what it had set to achieve and also creating space and opportunity for South Asian Playwrights and artists from the globe who are young and talented. --Krazywriter (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Company fails on WP:ORG. It's a Speedy candidate in my view(A7 and g11). Promotional too to some extent. The links in the article talk about "Half-Hearted", the play, not the company. Any theater company can play Shakespeare's Macbeth, they do not become notable for playing it. Apart from that this company is not even an year old to attain an encyclopedic value. Hitro talk 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the A7 speedy deletion nomination was valid, and I could have chosen to delete it rather than send it to AfD. However, I thought that it would be a good idea to follow process in this case to give Krazywriter a better idea of the criteria that we use to keep and delete articles, and just maybe get them to stay around and contribute after this AfD discussion has finished. (By the way, I disagree that the article is a G11 candidate; it has promotional wording here and there but I don't think it gets to the level of being "exclusively promotional", or that it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic".) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a news coverage by broadwayworld, did you see that? Broadway world is famous for all broadway, off broadway coverage. Also note that the play was originally written as "Halfway-House" and not "Half-Hearted", the production name was "Half-Hearted" after receiving all the paper work from author's wife. The play is significant as well as the production, let me tell you why? The production company is raising awareness about South Asian Playwrights in the heart of New York City, within a span of 11 months the company has produceded 2 South Asian Plays with International artists successfully. Do you mean promoting South Asian Theater in New York City is an insignificant event, then please provide the details of any such company which is working on South Asian Plays and has provided 2 successful performances in less than a Year. The article is encyclopedic because people will be aware of South Asian Playwrights and platform for budding international artists. --Krazywriter (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting South Asian theatre in New York City is an important endeavour, and I applaud you for it. I certainly support your efforts to bring South Asian theatre to a wider audience, and I imagine that the other participants in this discussion would as well. The problem here is that the reason that your article has been nominated for deletion has very little to do with how important your cause is. In fact, Wikipedia has plenty of articles about things that really aren't important at all. Rather than using "importance", which can be quite a subjective measurement, we use the coverage a subject has received in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. See this link for a quick (if slightly in-your-face) explanation of what this means, and see WP:ORG for the full explanation. And please feel free to ask if you have any questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This press release on MADPlayHouse site (dated Nov 25th) and this article on Broadway (dated Nov 26th) are quite similar word by word. Self published sources are not considered to be reliable on Wikipedia. Apart from that Broadway article talks mostly about the play, the showtimes, ticket prices and how to reach "Cherry Lane Theater", according to me this article is an advertorial. I did some researches but couldn't find reference of this company in any independent or reliable sources, if you manage to source the claims with reliable sources, then I will happily withdraw my delete comment. I do agree with User:Mr. Stradivarius and I truly appreciate your efforts to promote South Asian plays in North America, it isn't an easy job at all. Hitro talk 12:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How do you prove that the person who reported from braodwayworld is affiliated to the company? If this is an allegation of this serious nature I have to let the company know to handle the case or would request you to refrain from such comments which are derogatory in nature unless you have an evidence. Press Release is a standard format for any company and simply reporting it doesn't provide any evidence of company affiliation as I understand. Also check The South Asian Insider 13th December issue (http://thesouthasian.info/archives.html) and you can also take a look at the 13th december archival of Desi Talk. If all those news reports are taken from a press release that doesn't mean all these people are affiliated to the company, in that case it would have been a media house and not a Playhouse Theater. We should look at the bigger picture of the novelty of this effort in New York City and as a contributor to an encyclopedic sea of Wikipedia we should create a space for these one of a kind successful initiative which has no other comparison in terms of the time duration by which these efforts were carried out successfully. The encyclopedic article also shows that how in the USA we appreciate cultures to mix and have their space. Through Wikipedia people will know about South Asian Plays and how they have been integrated in the culture where artists of different countries have a common platform.

--Krazywriter (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across two articles which are similar word by word and I inserted the links in this discussion so that community can reach consensus quickly. However, if my statement seems derogatory then I apologize to you and remove it from the discussion. Hitro talk 22:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does this review published on Urban Asian sound familiar to you? Please note that Press release from a company is a standard procedure and if press is covering the same article that doesn't necessarily prove affiliation. I hope you understand the law of evidence when you claim or speculate someone is affiliated to somebody it is actually derogatory for both the company and the person/organization who has reported it. I think we should all look for the encyclopedic material for wiki and refrain from any speculation which is completely baseless and leaves an ill impression of judgement.--Krazywriter (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do this review look familiar to me? ---> Nope cuz it got published today itself, It's 29th December right now maybe 30th in Australia. I made my researches on 28th, I found nothing on Google. Hitro talk 17:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at all the discussions the major reasons "This article does not cite any references or sources", "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it" looks invalid. The topic has an undeniable importance and it should be part of Wiki.

--192.193.171.149 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial independent coverage. The regurgitated press releases are not reliable sources; and the invalid arguments boil down to an admixture of "It's a worthwhile endeavor", "I like it" and "This is going to become a noteworthy venture Real Soon Now"--Orange Mike | Talk 06:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not notable. References are press releases, primary sources or other types of sources that may not meet WP:RS. Basically, it's just another theatre company that hasn't done anything special. Gm545 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 21:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Dean[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be promotion by WP:Single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C5 and (per GS citation count) possible pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Here is C5:

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability.

My concerns about whether he meets C5 are: It needs to be a major institution...[with] a reputation for excellence or selectivity. I was unsure if Ball State met that. It also states that Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level and I couldn't find evidence that he has tenure. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Ball State University. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments that this is speculative original research are convincing. The "keep" opinion does not address them. Sandstein 12:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future car technologies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR fest. One proper reference, plus a bunch of random link dropping everywhere, doesn't save this from being junk. "Future car technologies", or alternate titles such as "Future of the car", is never going to be anything other than crystal balling; either the technology already exists, and is in a car in some form or another, or it doesn't exist yet, and any speculation about it is just that - speculation. For example, the materials section is completely inappropriate - every material in there has been used in a car in some form or another. Ditto the other sections. This survived an AfD in 2007, but heaven only knows how. In short, this article fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL - whilst giving the reader an utterly inaccurate view of the subject. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete One day our cars may be made of unobtainium, or made obsolete by teleportation; but it's obvious that the pages of Popular Science are the place for such speculation, and not here. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; vaguely speculative word-salad, and even the verifiable bits have factual errors. In no way is this a suitable encyclopædia article. bobrayner (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a legitimate subject with a poor article. If someone can put some real work in and find more sources and all the rest of it, I don't see why it should be deleted. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 00:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a legitimate subject at all. It doesn't matter what you put in this article; either the technology already exists, and thus it is not a "future technology", or it is pure speculation and WP:OR. The fact that carbon fibre, which has been used in racing cars since the 1980s, and in some road cars since the 1990s (possibly some in the 1980s as well), is listed in here is just an example of the fallacy of this article. Speculation belongs in the pages of a New Science journal, not an encyclopedia. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 11:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rcsprinter, the article doesn't have "more sources and all the rest of it", so I don't understand why you voted "Keep". If you're saying that somebody in future could hypothetically create an article which has those things, then I would agree, although it is likely to have serious problems with scope; in the meantime, the current article - the article that we're discussing here - doesn't meet our standards, so it should be deleted. bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Parlagi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer (WP:NBOX). Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He won a national title as a pro and fought at the World Championships as an amateur. --Michig (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having competed twice at the AIBA world amateur boxing championships is enough to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Willian Costa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable MMA fighter.Jakejr (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. But agreement that it needs cleanup badly. Sandstein 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent evolution[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The user Dogrt attempted to nominate this for deletion earlier. His reasoning is as follows: "The article is mostly a collection of meaningless sentences such as "Recurrent evolution is the noise that is evolution." I would like to see it erased."

I have no opinion on deletion, just procedurally nominating it on this user's behalf. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for my computer illiteracy. —Dan Graur —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AfD is not for cleanup. Nom's reasoning about nonsense applies only to the very first sentence in the article, and that appears to be a recent change. I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this field but there are mentions for it in Google Books and Google Scholar going back over 10 years, suggesting this is not a neologism but may be jargon. Article could use attention from an expert but nothing here to justify deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. The topic is notable, and deletion of the content in entirety would not benefit the encyclopedia in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. The article is certainly atrociously written and reads like an undergrad essay. What about WP:BLOWITUP? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't really seem that far gone to me, it's just overly technical, and the layout needs improvement. I don't have the technical expertise to clean up the science-y bits but someone should. I tagged the article for attention from WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Many good articles have started off as someone's homework. Ivanvector (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name one Good Article that started out as incoherently as this one? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second Good Article I clicked on just now, Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, is one that started off pretty rough. Not quite as bad as this, admittedly. I just don't like the idea of blowing things up when there's anything useful just for the sake of blowing them up. Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter article is factual, and it is easier to improve a factual article than a windy pseudo-philosophical one like this one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Not impossible, though, if the topic is worth keeping. Ivanvector (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to parallel evolution as WP:ESSAY. The phrase "recurrent evolution" occurs a few hundred times in the literature, but not with the meaning given here. Rather it seems to mostly refer to repeated evolution of the same features (i.e. like parallel evolution, but as repeated branches from the same lineage -- polyphyly or paraphyly). In other words, applying the usual meaning of the adjective "recurrent" to the noun "evolution." The essential concept in that usage is already covered in Parallel evolution. Looking at the sources of the present article, there seems to be a great deal of WP:SYNTH; the sources do not support some of the author's flights of fancy. Xxanthippe is right about WP:BLOWITUP. -- 101.119.14.233 (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NUKEANDPAVE I don't think wp:IDONTLIKEIT qualifies as a reason for deletion through DRV. But as Xanthippe and our IP address say the article itself is a bad one and needs serious work. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the article, recurrent evolution refers to the category of both parallel evolution and convergent evolution (not just parallel evolution as IP 101 says above). It does kind of make sense as a category given the meaning of the word "recurrent," but I agree that many of the sources are merely cases where the words "recurrent" and "evolution" happened to occur together. I understand most of the terms, and the article, though poorly written, appears to be mostly coherent (main exception: I don't understand "Recurrent evolution is when patterns emerge out of this stochastic process.") - I'm just not completely convinced that the sources treat it as a separate concept. I think the main source from which any case can be made is the first one, Maeso 2012. Perhaps the author (User:J.a.tarkington) could comment here and clarify. Sunrise (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says all kinds of things, but much of what the article says is inconsistent with what reliable sources say. -- 101.119.14.20 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific? Which sources, and which statements in the article do they contradict? If the statements are central to the article, then I'll change my comment to a Delete. Sunrise (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The literature (see e.g. Google Books) uses "recurrent evolution" with the ordinary sense of "recurrent." Phrases like "the signal in the noise that is evolution" and "recurrent evolution is when patterns emerge out of this stochastic process" are not supported. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to be communicating effectively, so never mind. :-) Sunrise (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This freely available article does a good job as summing up the use of the phrase recurrent evolution. Essentially it is just an umbrella term for both convergent and parallel evolution as well as recurrent evolution within a single lineage. The problem I think arises from the multiple uses of the phrase "recurrent evolution". The author of that paper says the phrase has lacked a precise definition, and this has led to confusion. He identifies 3 ways the phrase recurrent evolution has been used: Recurrent Phenotypic Evolution, Recurrent Molecular Evolution, and Recurrent Genomic Evolution. The problem with the current wikipedia article is it jumps back and forth between which of those three it is referring to. In the opening paragraph it defines evolution as the change in allele frequencies within a population, but then uses the phenotypic definition of recurrent evolution, where a common phenotype(not common alleles) arises between populations. Despite that I do think the article is salvageable, but whether it is easier or not to start from scratch I don't know.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Cordeiro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA figher - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:NMMA because of no top tier fights and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDespite the dearth of top tier fights, Cordeiro is well-known in MMA. In particular, as a master trainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.128.110 (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first day editing, so you may want to check out the Wikipedia policies at WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Jakejr (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fighter and no sources to show he's notable via WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wanderlei Silva. Courcelles 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wand Fight Team[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Unreferenced and notability not established. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Wanderlei Silva This article is unsourced and fails to show its subject is notable. There's no mention of this team in Silva's article, but a redirect and/or merge seems reasonable. There's nothing to show the team should have its own individual article. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Team that Silva represents, which is all the mention it gets in Silva's article. Team is not separately notable--appears to just be an ordinary gym except that it's Silva's.Jakejr (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cutting through the SPA's we;re left with a consensus that this magazine is not notable Courcelles 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Quarters Magazine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability except some in-passing mentions. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep Hi Randy, Here are a few evidences: Listed in the website of Rutgers, New Jersey http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/pbonline.html Listed in Wiki pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitoo_Das https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Xi The page is for a free literary magazine that does not charge its contributors. Please do not delete the page. Best, Goirick

Comment Sorry, but none of those links provide evidence of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete If every wikipedia page that is not notable is deleted, then I presume that the pages which are not deleted as of now or the pages over which there is no debate can be termed as notable? Four Quarters Magzine's name has been mentioned in more than two wiki pages of notable authors like Nitoo and Xuxi. Besides there are interviews and Reviews written in websites that have notable Wikipedia pages like Duotrope and Prairie Schooner. If almost all the sources that we have suggested below are reliable and notable (in wiki's definition) why then, should you pitch this page for speedy deletion? I seriously hope you reconsider your decision. I dont have any personal interest in popularizing the magazine, we don't get any revenue out of it. It is a literary mag and aimed at fostering art and creativity. Just wanted people around the world to know about it for the love of poetry sake. I hope you will understand. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.222.204 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — 122.176.222.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Approximately 100 hits on Google. It seems a bit too early to create an article at this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are atleast a 1000 unique hit in a week as per our Wordpress Hit counter plugin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As quoted before,This article has direct mentions of the magazine. Sunday Guardian is an independent and a reliable source that adheres to Wikipedia's notability norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.18.74.30 (talk • contribs) — 103.18.74.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment As said before, that is just an in-passing mention, which hardly contributes to notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a reader of TFQM. It's one of the best literary initiatives that has come accross in recent years in India. I request all senior wiki members to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep Exactly what I am saying "has mentions in a magazine/website article that contributes to notability. Since that website that mentions it adheres to Wikipedia's notability norms. 182.64.25.8 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Goirick(talk)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~check out the search results in google scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Four+Quarters+Magazine%22) for notability~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.52.204 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also please check this link http://soniaraowrites.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/online-literary-magazines-decoded-the-four-quarters-magazine/ for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.34.0 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete There are enough evidences in the web that it is trusted, free, reliable magazine and that contributes to notability. Please do not delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also please check Duotrope link https://duotrope.com/market_7909.aspx. Do not delete for the sake of it. It is a good magazine. We aren't really boasting about it in our wiki page. We are just stating it's mere existence. It helps both the writers and us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.25.8 122.176.198.250 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)(talk) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Four Quarters Magazine featured in Indian Newspaper Daily News and Analysis (DNA) 20,Oct 2013. Please check the link below as a proof of notability and reliability: "The Four Quarters Magazine, In Priase of the Past" http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=53781&boxid=11014&ed_date=2013-10-20&ed_code=820082&ed_page=9 — comment added by Goirick (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2013
Comment @Goirick:: you have !voted multiple times, struck the "delete" !vote by NPR, and just edited an IP's comment, suggesting that you are the same person as at least some of the IPs !voting here (some of which have !voted more than once, too). Please familiarize yourself with our AfD guidelines and WP:SOCK, as this kind of behavior will vey rapidly lead you to be blocked from editing. You're new here, so you may not have been familiar with these guidelines and therefore I have not undertaken any action. However, now you have been made aware of these issues, I will ask an uninvolved admin to block you if this behavior continues. Please also note the template on the top of this page about AFD not being a vote. None of the "keep" votes up till now are policy based or bring significant sources and are likely to all be ignored by the closing admin. Again, read the guidelines about what constitute effective arguments so that your participation in this discussion may be more constructive. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Randykitty::I agree I edited a few entries made by others only to make the arguments come across more clearly and that some of my own comments were made while I wasn't online resulting separate IPs.But I hope you trust me when I say some are genuine Ips of different users. I am sorry if my actions did not adhere to wiki guidelines. I am not here to show majority vote or fight for the sake of it with you. I am sure u have a basis for which you are arguing for deletion of the page.However, all I am trying here is to defend my case.Please do not jump into conclusions "None of the "keep" votes up till now are policy based or bring significant sources and are likely to all be ignored by the closing admin." without clicking the links. I request you to go through them with a unbiased, non deletionist, like you claim in your user profile :).Please consider the last source mentioned "The Four Quarters Magazine featured in Indian Newspaper Daily News and Analysis (DNA) 20,Oct 2013. Please check the link below as a proof of notability and reliability: "The Four Quarters Magazine, In Priase of the Past" http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=53781&boxid=11014&ed_date=2013-10-20&ed_code=820082&ed_page=9 " I am not here to fight really brother. Please go through the links we all have shared under keep vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs)

Well, now that you know the rules, perhaps you can ~~strike~~ your extra !votes. As for the links you provided, of course I have looked at them. If I thought that any of them would establish notability, I would withdraw the deletion nomination immediately. However, not even the DNA link helps, as press releases or this kind of announcement do not show any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty:: If the newspaper published the CFS without us sending them doesn't it qualify for notability? Its an independent source, reliable and unbiased, so it cannot be influenced by any other entity.

Delete or WP:Incubate until the authors learn Wikipedia protocol. Difficult to tell notability for a magazine as there's so much tertiary fluff created when a publication is a subject but I'd guess it's not notable given that the only two sources referenced in the body of the article mention the publication only in passing. Given the fuss over keeping the article, I'd suspect WP:COI which is ironic given that they can't follow editorial policy. Gm545 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracxta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around since 2012 but there haven't been any reliable sources added to indicate notability per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. A Google search for Tracxta brings up many pages where their songs are available, but no significant discussion of the band or their music. ... discospinster _talk 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They appear to have released only three songs in four years, and I can't find any reliable, independent sources. Although not a measure of notability, Google can only find 2270 matches, which is remarkably few, and these are predominantly free download sites, with a few social media and Wikipedia mirror sites. Arjayay (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot find sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Reliable sources have been provided. (See also WP:BEFORE) Alex^{discussion ★} 11:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apeiron (video game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with one reference, which does not meet WP:RS as it's only a site that allows download of the game. No reviews or other relevant third party coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added review references from relevant third parties including Macworld which is listed in WP:VG/RS as a reliable source for video game reviews. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources now referenced, it easily passing WP:GNG. Dream Focus 04:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RS which attest to notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deletion A7. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwee Technologies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is borderline notable. Doesn't need a Wikipedia article. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No references, could be speedily deleted for failure to assert notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 as no significant ghits can be found. --Bisswajit (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary-sourced article by a WP:SPA and nothing found beyond directory listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. As per above, I am flagging as CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Popular Culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no evidence of notability here at all, just existence. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Meets WP:ORG and WP:AUD. Per WP:AUD:

Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

El Vocero (see [9]), NotiCel (see [10]) and Primera Hora (see [11]) are considered regional newspapers as they expand all of Puerto Rico, not merely a city. Furthermore, the organization is well known in the territory due to its public service announcements such as: [12] which are transmitted on WKAQ-TV, WAPA-TV, and WLII-TV.

And finally, the organization itself is considered a reliable source in matters related to Puerto Rican culture, as shown in the book The Afro-Latin@ Reader: History and Culture in the United States; see [13]:

For information on Lucecita's career [...] see [...] Lucecita's folders at the Fundación Nacional para la Cultura Popular.

Other sources where the foundation is covered include: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Suggestion is to do a search on its Spanish name rather than in English.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem is not that the organization lacks notability but that the notability is not evident because the does not yet include citations like the additional citations listed above. As an alternative, it can be marked as a stub while the article is expanded. Mercy11 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed by Ahnoneemoos are enough to establish notability. Hopefully the article can be expanded with the new sources explaining the role and importance of the organization. --Jmundo (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Separately and editorially redirecting as suggested. Sandstein 12:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnhild Lorentzen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ragnhild Lorentzen (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was a discussion in 2009 that reached no consensus. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen.) My own reading is that she's not notable enough — she's 66th on the succession list for the British throne, and presumably a lot higher on the Norwegian throne, but the article itself does not assert any other real claim to notability nor is there apparently any. I simply don't see it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't understand why the last discussion reached a non consensus outcome, but the article's subject lacks sufficient coverage and notability to have its own article within wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. As it turns out, my assumption that she's higher on the Norwegian succession list is wrong. Looks like she's not eligible for that throne at all. (See Line of succession to the Norwegian throne.) --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article shows no real accomplishments. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Lorentzen or Delete. Notability is not inherited. I think there have been some interviews, mentions of her in Norwegian press, like in the Guardian article; this is mainly trivia and not significant coverage that would merit a stand-alone article per WP:GNG, but since all interviews are related to her family it might be enough for a redirect, like Brooklyn Beckham and Maud Angelica Behn. (I think the articleon the Lorentzen family probably should go too, as not many are independetly notable.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Landry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this scientist sufficiently notable? I don't think what was stated here, which merely indicated that she worked on a number of (sure, very important) projects, as well as speaking at conventions, make her sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary sources listed here aren't good enough for WP:GNG and her citation record isn't good enough for WP:PROF. I found a few books on space exploration that briefly mentioned her work at NASA, but none had in-depth enough coverage to convince me of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of her notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Synthetic original research was used to create this list which is essentially a WP:POVFORK meant to trumpet or an WP:ATTACKPAGE meant to denigrate the included "scientists". Either way, not encyclopedic. jps (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ATTACKPAGE DocumentError (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking any source indicating notability as a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it doesn't seem to be intended as an attack page, there are serious BLP issues which may arise from associating working, professional scientists (which would describe at least a few of the people on the list) with such a black-and-white declaration of their position on a politically-sensitive issue. The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy touches on some further problems. It is also not clear how Wikipedia is served by creating this list; again, while the intent at work in its creation is probably innocent, the effect is to create a nifty bit of inappropriate WP:SYN – bolstering a particular fringe POV – by collating and summarizing as many anti-thimerosal claims as possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above, this page serve as nothing but to reflect pov statements. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a huge WP:COATRACK. Many of the people listed on this page are insufficiently notable to have their own articles too. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet per all of the above. this is original research, POV nonsense. Ww don't have "List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy", which incidnetally doesn't seem to be a theory. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK and because of the BLP issues raised by TenOfAllTrades. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on rationale of notability but would support delete on the basis of WP:BLOWITUP because there are serious WP:V problems here. I do not feel this article should attempt to be a list of scientists who "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy", but would support this content being moved to List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy because that number is relatively few and it would relieve BLP concerns. The book Bad Pharma has a chapter on this topic, and suggests that despite the thimerosal controversy becoming a major international controversy, there was scientific consensus on one side and only a few researchers in opposition. Lists on Wikipedia are almost always original research as is the category system, but at least in the case of lists it is possible to provide citations to verify whether a statement is so. It seems that right now many entries in this list are poorly cited and also as I said, I feel that this list should be reserved for people for whom their position on this issue is key to their public identity and not those for whom this affiliation is merely incidental. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I quite follow your reasoning here. If it is anticipated that this list will have (and likely will only ever have) a small number of entries, it strikes me as much less POV-fork-ish to simply mention the individuals – or their research – with appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the proper (NPOV) context of thiomersal controversy. Biographical articles for individuals with sufficient independent notability – whether as scientists and researchers, or in relation to this specific topic – will of course be linked as normal. Individuals whose noteworthiness (or notoriety) is insufficient to warrant a free-standing Wikipedia biography or a mention in thiomersal controversy are not significant enough players to warrant creation of a separately-maintained list article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this article contains enough content to fork from the thiomersal controversy article and it would be undue to include it. It should not be merged there as a list, although some of this could be included as prose. If these are all major figures in the controversy, and they could be, then it could be awkward to merge so many biographies there. I see seven biographies here with linked Wikipedia articles and would support the exclusion of all individuals who do not meet inclusion criteria, but I feel that 7 is a reasonable number of items to justify a list. If this information is good and there are no challenges to its quality then I think it should be kept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. Delete. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK - I agree with Bluerasberry that there is probably some salvageable material here, but I believe anything saveable should be merged into the articles about the thimerosal controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with any notable aspects to be covered in more encyclopedic pages, as noted above. -- Scray (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP violation. In most cases the sources do not establish that they oppose "the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy" (whatever that means). In July 1999, the US Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure, and several people on the list have made statements totally consistent with that. -- 101.119.29.207 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenOfAllTrades. Any biographies should just contain the fact and sources documenting their opposition and a wikilink to the main article at Thiomersal controversy. While we have much greater latitude for lists than for articles, this one creates an undue weight issue by giving a fringe position such prominence. The same applies to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It too should be AfDed, but many previous attempts have failed. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability of the topic. (I disagree with the claim that it is an attack page.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a highly misleading list compiled by an editor. Fortunately WP:DUE still rules, and it is not satisfactory for an article to essentially say "the following is nonsense, but we're going to list it anyway because it might convince a reader that there must be a vaccine problem". Further, a scientist may well have raised objections about a particular study, or about the general issue, but now has a different view based on an assessment of currently available data. Science is not a vote, and even if it were, it is UNDUE to list a small number of objectors without listing the vast majority of scientists who support the mainstream position. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, which lack sources establishing notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quicklooker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about search software. I am unable to find a single source. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 02:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 02:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even though NSOFTWARE is an essay, this article fails WP:GNG and lacks substantial coverage. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a self-promotional article, given the name of the originator and sole editor. No sources, no indication of notability, and I have been unable to find any independent evidence of the existence of this project. RolandR (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - several source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay First Edition Show Choir[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Before the Google News Archive was closed down, I did a search for [ "Findlay First Edition" ] and found a mere six hits. All were from news outlets from the choir's home state. I suspect that none contained any significant coverage. In general, the types of outlets which are likely to write about Findlay First Edition are low-circulation outlets which may not pass WP:RS. Dear article contributors: Please see WP:42 for more information. (I thank Yunshui for providing inspiration which helped me to write this argument, and User:DocumentError for inspiring me to change my !vote to "delete".)

2. Plus, I think that this article is full of puffery, and that it fails both WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NPOV.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TMI in this entry. The bulk of content is more appropriate for the show's own website, not WP. I don't support merge/redirect, I support delete. DocumentError (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom and above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as A7 (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dailybibletimes.org[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Google news and scholar search results come up empty-handed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom DocumentError (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBSITE.--Bisswajit (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied Deb (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No need to apologize for creating this article, it is just at the moment there is consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. This can change some day.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Lloyd (venture capitalist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence for notability of this venture capitalist. Saying what firms are in his portfolio is meaningless without an indication of what % he owns. Being " "The Angel 100: New York’s Top Early Stage Investors"" is much too broadly inclusive for it to demonstrate notability DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listings, that's all the sources are, listings, but nothing that ammounts to WP:BLPSOURCES. And for someone who is apparently so notable, no substantial Ghits. A very professionally drafted article however, so much so that it looks almost like a promotional piece for his companies masquerading as a biography. Maybe he is notable, but unfortunately fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be conflict of interest, article is strictly written to promote this individual, his sources and a research brings nothing but more promotional hit, only passing mentions. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this article and it was the first article I created for Wikipedia. I have a friend who saw him at a lecture and I started researching him and thought he was notable. I did go through the article submission process and the article was approved by Satellizer. I do not know Lloyd at all. I do have a journalism degree and am a writer; I tried to write a strong article. I apologize if I should not have created the article. Thank you--BuzyBody (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there appears not to be a strong COI here, there is no clear notability. Unless we can find something that the subject has done that has not been done by other venture capitalists beyond setting up a VC firm and being a member of it, I am afraid it does not belong on Wikipedia. --gilgongo (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As advertisements. Sandstein 12:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khon Kaen MICE Tourism and related articles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Let me restate, and expand on, what Andyjsmith wrote elsewhere. These articles (written by the author of other poor articles such as our now-deleted "Sanjana Sanghi" article) are nothing but thinly disguised advertisements. These articles were written to encourage the meetings, incentives, conferencing, exhibitions (MICE) industry to plan events in these five respective cities in Thailand. It seems to me that these five unbalanced articles all fail WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and WP:NPOV and so should be deleted. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nome. Fails what wikipedia is not guidelines and criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The articles are badly sourced, have no encyclopedic value and are merely promotional. andy (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Blatant spamming. Creator also pastes large chunks of MICE spam into existing Thailand articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I am the creator of the pages and I would like to mention here a few points about why they should not be deleted:

pages represent facts about one of the major industry in Thailand which contributes 10% of total gdp (tourism).
largest source of income in some provinces like Pattaya and Phuket.
Have significant citations in different public forums.
Recognized by corresponding province administrations.
The reason for which pages were nominated for deletion was suspicion of paid editing over me. Like I have already mentioned here, I happen to know about the industry due to my work with it for a short term.

Although I believe some content of the page might appear to be advertised and doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines which I am also in favour of deletion, but removal of whole page due to it should not be done as wikipedia's ultimate aim to enhance knowledge and provide reliable information.

Mr RD (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr RD. I am the nominator. Why do you think I suspect you of paid editing? Our NPOV policy is binding upon all editors, even though they are unpaid. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Unforgettableid, I thought of you suspecting me of paid editing as you proposed most of my created pages for deletion. As per NPOV policy is concerned, it allows representing as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All the statements in the page I have mentioned are with proper citations. If you feel any statement as biased, you could have edited or deleted the same. Regards Mr RD (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islam ul Haque[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional page. His medal is the 4th highest level of award by Pakistan, and we don;t usually consider that as notability DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non flag officer isn't notable of himself absent a claim to fame, of which Haque appears to have none. This is a C.V., not a Wikipedia entry. DocumentError (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotional article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to have had a mildly distinguished, uneventful career, but has neither done nor achieved anything beyond that which would be expected of the duties entrusted to his roles in life. I don't think simply doing your job is notable. --gilgongo (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agilence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a small company in a specialized niche. The references are just routine anouncements of very small amounts of funding.

Accepted at AfC, like so many similar articles DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Inc profile linked in the article indicates a small firm going about its business. A Highbeam search turned up various publications of company announcements (appointments, sales) but I am finding no detailed independent coverage about the company itself to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Though the firm's product range appears to have broadened since the 2009 AfD I see no reason to overturn its decision. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.